Challenge to iambiguous and surreptitious both

Hell, in my own way, no one is more predictable here than me. But I still find the points that I raise [and the way I articulate them] intriguing. The stuff that obsesses me revolves around the choices that we make when they come to revolve around others who insist that they are not the choices that a rational and virtuous person would make. Why? Because they are not the choices that they would make. Then they cite one or another God or ideology or moral narrative said to be predicated on Reason or Nature.

But then I ask them how instead that is not embedded existentially in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

How are they able to defend their own values/behaviors such that they are not entangled [as “I” am] in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Only demonstrate how this is the case by noting actual conflicts that they have had with others; or by defending their political values in reacting to a moral conflagration that pops up over and again “in the news”.

It’s getting them to go there that is always the hard part for me.

It is hard because morality is subjective or inter subjective and constantly evolving both collectively and individually
There are no absolute rules or objectively right or wrong answers and everything is ultimately open to interpretation

Actually, I’m convinced it is hard for them because once they bring their carefully constructed “world of words” – their “intellectual contraption” – down to earth, they bump into the components of my own moral philosophy.

They bump into this argument: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

In other words, they come to understand [more or less] that so much of what they do value as either the right or the wrong thing to do comes to be embodied existentially over the course of their actual “lived life”. As a consequence, they are predisoposed to think and to feel this instead of that given the actual sequence of experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge that has come to constitute their “self” – “I” – out in a particular is/ought world construed from a particular point of view.

And then to the extent they seek to transcend this theologically, philosophically, scientifically, ideologically, “naturally” etc., by encompassing a moral narrative that all rational and virtuous men and women are said to be obligated to embody, they note that those on the other side are doing much the same thing. Conflicting goods. Start with one set of assumptions about human interactions [the unborn have a natural right to life], reasonable behaviors are these; start with another set [women have a political right to choose] and reasonable behaviors are those.

Finally, the most astute come to recognize that even to the extent they are right [philosophically, morally etc.] what ultimately counts [in a No God world] is having the power [in any particular community] to legislate and then to enforce one set of values over the others.

But these relationships can only be explored fully [in my view] down on the ground. By noting our own experiences or by justifying our own political values relating to the conflicts that pop up everyday “in the news”.

So in other words… you’re arguing that hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms is not moral.

Correct?

How on earth does someone actually go about “hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms”? And if, having accomplished this, what criteria would they cite in order to differentiate moral from immoral behaviors?

With respect to, say, any particular moral conflagration we are likely to be familiar with.

[size=50][just out of curiosity, has your sanity ever been questioned?
By a professional, I mean][/size]

Ahh… so now someone who solves your hole must be clinically insane.

We already co-hallucinate reality from eternal forms.

Without the eternal form of say, walkingness, walking would be impossible to name as an object.

Let me be more succinct. Without eternal forms, motion could not be named as an object and different motions could not be named as different objects.

I am arguing that there is no such thing as hallucinating reality from eternal forms [ whatever they are ]
But what has this got to do with subjective morality which is supposed to be what this thread is about ?

Motion is not an object but a behaviour and will you please stop posting all this nonsense as it makes absolutely no sense at all

Yeah, that’s basically my own reaction as well. Some of the stuff he posts makes me think that, philosophically, he’s a double bogie short of a hole in one. Or 299 pins away from a perfect game.

I can’t decide if he is in fact a fucking genius…and that I am in way over my head. Or perhaps he is just fucking around entertaining himself by posting whatever pops into his head in order to yank our chains.

All I know is that he comes no where near to bringing these “eternal forms” [and all the other intellectual contraptions] out into the world of conflicting goods; and he certainly doesn’t describe or demonstrate the manner in which they are said to be applicable to the part where we topple over into the abyss that is oblivion.

Is he living in a world all his own? One inside his head? Or am I the problem? Am I simply not getting some very, very insightful points from him?

I’m open to be convinced it’s the latter.

It has everything to do with the objective solution to morality, we all need to individually be in our own reality to solve all moral equations.

I solved this with what I call, “the 5 heartbreaks of relationship”

A reality with more that 1 person in it, never works.

Walking is motion, we name it as an object.

It’s all in my videos … about 7 hours content

Sure, that’ll do it. You can pack your things and live alone on an island somewhere. Or you can eschew all human contact and live by your own wits deep in the forest. A survivalist.

This way the behaviors that you choose come down to a relationship with nature alone.

Or, for some, with a God of their choosing.

The point being that you behave only in accordance with your own sense of right and wrong. There is simply no one else around who might beg to differ.

For the overwhelming preponderance of us however that is not an option that they choose. They do interact with others who might beg to differ. And regarding any number of things.

Then what?

Then any number of folks will make any number of videos to explain how if only others will choose what they choose then moral harmony can still be the order of the day.

The reality you are currently experiencing comprises over 7 billion people

Reducing that to just I will not automatically solve every moral equation

I thought it was interesting because the summation works rather well for you also, except for the two things cited at the end

“the unreal me” and the "seeming impossibility of finding the right thing to do coupled with the need to prioritize finding it anyway over all other things’

would be my replacements.

And yes, this leads to Ecmandu and Iamb having different metaphysics but it ends up creating similar discussion partners.

I’m not going to bother with your baiting other than to say Iambiguous and I are very different in approach and philosophy.

I will say this though, and I truly believe it.

There are no lords or emperors or kings… female as well, there is only prime logos.

You and iamb are not prime logos beings to the extent I am.

May very well be true. I am not an abstraction, even one that governs the universe. I am a complicated being.

When have I ever denied that my own narrative here is no less an existential contraption? How many times have I acknolwedged that I have no capacity to demonstrate substantively that others ought to share my own frame of mind?

I simply note how in my own subjective opinion “here and now” I – “I” – construe myself as having tumbled down into a hole in which my own value judgments are seen to be rooted in dasein, out in a world of conflicting goods, predicated in the final analysis on who has the political power to enforce one set of rewards and punishments over another.

Then I ask those who do not share this frame of mind to bring their own value judgments “down to earth”; so that we can focus in on a particular context and exchange moral narratives and/or political agendas.

In the manner in which, say, Phyllo and I have done with regards to Communism.

Okay, let’s zero in on a conflicting good most of us here will be familiar with. We can discuss the manner in which one might make a distinction between the “real me” and the “unreal me”.

And we can note in turn how a distinction might be made between those things that one construes to have a higher priority over other things. With respect to the moral conflagrations that revolve around issues like abortion or gun control or the role of government or social justice or homosexuality or immigration laws or animal rights.

In all honesty, the posts from Ecmandu here are practically gibberish to me. I almost never see any real connection between the points I make and the points he makes.

It’s as though he really has concocted this made up “world of words” inside his head; and everything flows from those assumptions.

For example what on earth does it mean to speak of a “prime logos” with respect to ones own conflicting interactions with others?

He’ll either go are [and illustrate the text] or he won’t. Or, if he already has, I would appreciate being linked to it.

Wouldn’t it be fantastic if science could invent a technology that allowed us to grasp what others are thinking and feeling in “real time”.

But even here we wouldn’t have access to all of the many, many, many experiences and relationships and sources of information/knowledge that, in accumulating over years, predisposed their own particular “I” to see the world around them as they do.

All we can do instead is to make an effort to distinguish between these subjective elements and those things that we [as scientists or philosophers] are able to demonstrate as that which all reasonable men and women are likely to think and feel in turn.

Iambiguous, you are abysmal at self reference, which is why in this level, your posts look like the posts of a 10 year old

For example: what if you are just another existential contraption ?

I’ll be dead serious with you here …

Humans think they’ve won!!

“I got the house, I got the wife, I got the job, I got the children”

All zero sum… actually they all lost in the game of life.

Zero sum lives aren’t worth living.

Your reaction to this is obvious and not helpful.

You’re still in the delusion that life accepts zero sum interactions as anything but pure evil, and so your head spins in associative aggression (your posting history)

No, seriously, how is this not just “babbling on”? Huffing and puffing about me while making no attempt at all to bring his “challenge” to me down to earth?

Objective morality? Okay, maybe. Let him choose the context, the behaviors, the conflict.

Or is that a bit “frightening” to him and his ilk here. :wink: